The Doctrine of the Saints' Perseverance

The sum of this part of the Reply is, that what Paul speaks is true, of the ordinary course of Believers, but not of extraordinary surprisals; this seems I ⟨p. 339⟩say to be the tendency of it, though the direct sense of the whole is not so obvious to me: by that expression, the evil that I would not, that I do, you intend either the expression of, he would not, or, that he did; if the latter; then you say, he did not sin ordinarily and frequently, but only upon surprisals, which is freely granted, but is not at all to your purpose, but rather much against it; If you attend that part of it, which holds out his Renitency against the evil he did, in the expression of I would not, then you say, it was not ordinary with the Apostle to nill the evil that he did, but in case of surprisal to sin, which I believe is not intended; for is it credible, that any one should think that in the ordinary course of a mans walking there should be no opposition made to sin, the falling whereinto men are liable, but upon surprisals and anticipations by temptation, as it is phrased there should. Nor is it on the other side, that he intends the things that he did ordinarily, but was surprised by temptation, then it might be otherwise. But first, is a Saint to be supposed to sin ordinarily, to sin not prevailed on by temptation? is not all sin from temptation? do they sin actually but upon the surprisal of temptation? to impose this upon the Apostle, that he should say truly for the most part, or in my ordinary walking, I do not sin, but withal, I will it not, but when I am surprised with temptations, then it is otherwise with me, there is no Renitency in my will to sin, is doubtless to wrong him; He doth not limit his not willing of the evil he did to any consideration whatever, but speaks it generally, as the constant state and condition of things with him.

The summe of this part of the Reply is, that what Paul speaks is true, of the ordinary course of Believers, but not of extraordinary surprisals; this seems I ⟨p. 339⟩say to be the tendency of it, though the direct sence of the whole is not so obvious to mee: by that expression, the evill that I would not, that I doe, you intend either the expression of, he would not, or, that he did; if the latter; then you say, he did not sinne ordinarily and frequently, but only upon surprisalls, which is freely granted, but is not at all to your purpose, but rather much against it; If you attend that part of it, which holds out his Renitency against the evill he did, in the expression of I would not, then you say, it was not ordinary with the Apostle to nill the evill that he did, but in case of surprisall to sinne, which I believe is not intended; for is it credible, that any one should think that in the ordinary course of a mans walking there should be no opposition made to sinne, the falling whereinto men are liable, but upon surprizalls and anticipations by temptation, as it is phrased there should. Nor is it on the other side, that he intends the things that he did ordinarily, but was surprized by temptation, then it might be otherwise. But first, is a Saint to be supposed to sinne ordinarily, to sinne not prevailed on by temptation? is not all sinne from temptation? doe they sinne actually but upon the surprisall of temptation? to impose this upon the Apostle, that he should say truly for the most part, or in my ordinary walking, I doe not sinne, but withall, I will it not, but when I am surprized with temptations, then it is otherwise with mee, there is no Renitency in my will to sinne, is doubtlesse to wrong him; He doth not limit his not willing of the evill he did to any consideration whatever, but speakes it generally, as the constant state and condition of things with him.